A husband’s petition under the subsection was based on the wife’s failure to contribute to the running of the home and on her increasingly erratic behaviour, both of which were the result of a severe neurological condition. Rees J noted that, before approving the form of words in section 2(1)(b) of the 1969 Act, Parliament had considered and rejected a form of words that ‘the conduct of the respondent has been so intolerable that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to continue or resume cohabitation’.
He held that a respondent’s failure to act could amount to behaviour for the purposes of the subsection. Even more significantly, he held that behaviour caused by illness could fall within the subsection; and, in granting a decree to the husband, he added that ‘no blame of any kind can be nor is attributed to the wife’.
[1976] Fam 32
Divorce Reform Act 1969 2(1)(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Owens v Owens SC 25-Jul-2018
W petitioned for divorce alleging that he ‘has behaved in such a way that [she] cannot reasonably be expected to live with [him]’. H defended, and the petition was rejected as inadequate in the behaviour alleged. She said that the section should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.666498